Shams: Jimmy Butler Has MCL Injury, Could Be Out A While

[Celtics2021]

All the more reason to not have the play-in when there are terrible teams in it.

Butler's injury had nothing to do with the play-in. He had a wide open lay-up but decided to wait for the defender to go up and Butler's jump into contact. It was a typical Butler dirty play to get an and-one. Play stupid games, you get stupid prizes, and his was an injury.

It was an extra game that was only being played because of the play-in

Play better in the regular season & you don't have to deal with the play-in game.

They were 7 games clear of the Bulls and won 46 games.  The  Bulls belong no where near the playoffs

So what?  This structure has been in place a few years now.  Teams know it.  You don't play well enough in the regular season and you risk being subjected to the whims of a play-in.   There are plenty of less fair things in life.

Don't like it, play better.

Yep.  If the Heat want to pretend the regular season doesn’t matter, and get themselves into a win-or-go-home situation, that’s on them.

Yeah I was gonna say, people praise the Heat and Butler for turning it up during the playoffs and say that they can "afford" to stroll through the regular season because they got "Himmy" Butler and "Heat Culture" to turn it up during the postseason. And now someone gets hurt in that extra game they have to play and suddenly it's the fault of the play-in format which has been there already for 3+ years now? Lol sure.

They can certainly amend the format a bit and I don't disagree that a team that's well below .500 shouldn't make it. But Miami really only have themselves to blame for being in the format to begin with.

I'm curious to hear what the thoughts are though about not having teams with bad records in the play-in. Like how would that work? It'd be odd if one conference has to play a play-in tournament but another conference can just sit idle because everyone is locked into seeding and the 9-10 seeds were garbage. That'd cause uproar. But I don't think they should get rid of the whole format either.

I think it would be unfair to the one seed in the conference that didn’t have a play-in compared to the 1-seed of the conference that did, and it’s more important to be fair to the teams that win compared to the ones that lose.

[P2]

If Jimmy is going to be out for a series vs Boston I think I'd rather just play the Bulls. If the C's play the Heat and then win all we'd hear about from Miami fans is how the Heat would have rolled us IF Jimmy was healthy. It will be the "Middleton wasn't healthy" thing all over again.

Listen, there will be people with such a narrative and they won't ever go away, but if the C's win the chip, the majority of people and media will literally not even once use Jimmy's injury as an excuse, and even more so if they'll lose to the Bulls. Actually, even if Jimmy was available, Chicago would still have a decent chance of winning. And don't forget that we've been in this situation many times (KG in 09, Perk in 10, Jaylen in 21, et al.) and even none of us care about that anymore.

[Moranis]

All the more reason to not have the play-in when there are terrible teams in it.

Butler's injury had nothing to do with the play-in. He had a wide open lay-up but decided to wait for the defender to go up and Butler's jump into contact. It was a typical Butler dirty play to get an and-one. Play stupid games, you get stupid prizes, and his was an injury.

It was an extra game that was only being played because of the play-in

Play better in the regular season & you don't have to deal with the play-in game.

They were 7 games clear of the Bulls and won 46 games.  The  Bulls belong no where near the playoffs

That is true for the East but in the West, it was much different.  There is no right  or wrong answer regarding the play-in.  I don't really like it either.  But Butler getting hurt doesn't prove anything.

Didn't you post that you thought ATL was going to get the #8 slot?  I agree that a team (ATL) who is 10 games back of MIA, shouldn't be able to get into the playoffs by winning 1 game.  But in the west, GSW and SAC both won 46 games.  The other side of the argument is that they deserve a shot at the playoffs.

As I've said elsewhere, I have no problem worh the play-in in the West, I'd just out some parameters on it for teams to qualify.  I think within 6 games of a playoff team if you have under 40 wins. If you win 40 games or are within 6 games of a team the play-in happens. There may be years where 0, 1, or 2 teams qualify and that is fine by me.  The play-in should be used in situations where teams are close and in a way you feel bad if a team doesn't have a shot.  So out west nothing changes this year, while in East no play in games this year.  I would not extend it past 2 extra teams (sorry Houston).

The league needs to stop rewarding bad teams and punishing good teams. 

[Moranis]

All the more reason to not have the play-in when there are terrible teams in it.

Butler's injury had nothing to do with the play-in. He had a wide open lay-up but decided to wait for the defender to go up and Butler's jump into contact. It was a typical Butler dirty play to get an and-one. Play stupid games, you get stupid prizes, and his was an injury.

It was an extra game that was only being played because of the play-in

Play better in the regular season & you don't have to deal with the play-in game.

They were 7 games clear of the Bulls and won 46 games.  The  Bulls belong no where near the playoffs

So what?  This structure has been in place a few years now.  Teams know it.  You don't play well enough in the regular season and you risk being subjected to the whims of a play-in.   There are plenty of less fair things in life.

Don't like it, play better.

Yep.  If the Heat want to pretend the regular season doesn’t matter, and get themselves into a win-or-go-home situation, that’s on them.

Yeah I was gonna say, people praise the Heat and Butler for turning it up during the playoffs and say that they can "afford" to stroll through the regular season because they got "Himmy" Butler and "Heat Culture" to turn it up during the postseason. And now someone gets hurt in that extra game they have to play and suddenly it's the fault of the play-in format which has been there already for 3+ years now? Lol sure.

They can certainly amend the format a bit and I don't disagree that a team that's well below .500 shouldn't make it. But Miami really only have themselves to blame for being in the format to begin with.

I'm curious to hear what the thoughts are though about not having teams with bad records in the play-in. Like how would that work? It'd be odd if one conference has to play a play-in tournament but another conference can just sit idle because everyone is locked into seeding and the 9-10 seeds were garbage. That'd cause uproar. But I don't think they should get rid of the whole format either.

I think it would be unfair to the one seed in the conference that didn’t have a play-in compared to the 1-seed of the conference that did, and it’s more important to be fair to the teams that win compared to the ones that lose.

the 1 seeds not knowing who they play until Friday night already puts then at a big disadvantage though. They also have a full week off, which is when the rust starts to really set in.  Again, if teams are deserving of the shot, have at it, but rewarding a terrible team like the Hawks or Bulls, while harming much better teams like the Sixers and Heat, and then putting the 2 best teams at a disadvantage doesn't make sense if the teams you are doing that for are not worthy.

[bdm860]

All the more reason to not have the play-in when there are terrible teams in it.

Butler's injury had nothing to do with the play-in. He had a wide open lay-up but decided to wait for the defender to go up and Butler's jump into contact. It was a typical Butler dirty play to get an and-one. Play stupid games, you get stupid prizes, and his was an injury.

It was an extra game that was only being played because of the play-in

Play better in the regular season & you don't have to deal with the play-in game.

They were 7 games clear of the Bulls and won 46 games.  The  Bulls belong no where near the playoffs

That is true for the East but in the West, it was much different.  There is no right  or wrong answer regarding the play-in.  I don't really like it either.  But Butler getting hurt doesn't prove anything.

Didn't you post that you thought ATL was going to get the #8 slot?  I agree that a team (ATL) who is 10 games back of MIA, shouldn't be able to get into the playoffs by winning 1 game.  But in the west, GSW and SAC both won 46 games.  The other side of the argument is that they deserve a shot at the playoffs.

As I've said elsewhere, I have no problem worh the play-in in the West, I'd just out some parameters on it for teams to qualify.  I think within 6 games of a playoff team if you have under 40 wins. If you win 40 games or are within 6 games of a team the play-in happens. There may be years where 0, 1, or 2 teams qualify and that is fine by me.  The play-in should be used in situations where teams are close and in a way you feel bad if a team doesn't have a shot.  So out west nothing changes this year, while in East no play in games this year.  I would not extend it past 2 extra teams (sorry Houston).

The league needs to stop rewarding bad teams and punishing good teams.

I think the bad teams part is way over blown.  Besides a few detractors, and some yet-to-materialize what-if scenarios, I think the play-in is considered a resounding success by the league, media, and the vast majority of teams and fans.

The play-in works because the threat of missing the playoffs has improved the regular season by keeping teams from mailing it in during the final weeks/months.  If Chicago/Atlanta were disqualified due to the gap in wins, the entire threat of missing the playoffs is eliminated, which is the only thing that makes it work.

In it's brief history, the play-in so far has accomplished the following:
Keeps the regular season competitive for longer for more teams.
Keeps the regular season interesting longer for more fans.
Makes it much harder to manipulate the standings for a favorable playoff match up.
Rewards teams 1-6 with a week off.
Has consistently pulled in high ratings every year.
The worst play-in team to ever make the playoffs (36-46 Pelicans in '22) were still able to take a 64-win team to a 6 game series.

It seems like the play-in has improved the entire product in multiple ways (more engagement, more revenue).

Where is the downside?  A hypothetical terrible first round match up?  Seems like an acceptable trade off.

[green_bballers13]

All the more reason to not have the play-in when there are terrible teams in it.

Butler's injury had nothing to do with the play-in. He had a wide open lay-up but decided to wait for the defender to go up and Butler's jump into contact. It was a typical Butler dirty play to get an and-one. Play stupid games, you get stupid prizes, and his was an injury.

It was an extra game that was only being played because of the play-in

Play better in the regular season & you don't have to deal with the play-in game.

They were 7 games clear of the Bulls and won 46 games.  The  Bulls belong no where near the playoffs

That is true for the East but in the West, it was much different.  There is no right  or wrong answer regarding the play-in.  I don't really like it either.  But Butler getting hurt doesn't prove anything.

Didn't you post that you thought ATL was going to get the #8 slot?  I agree that a team (ATL) who is 10 games back of MIA, shouldn't be able to get into the playoffs by winning 1 game.  But in the west, GSW and SAC both won 46 games.  The other side of the argument is that they deserve a shot at the playoffs.

As I've said elsewhere, I have no problem worh the play-in in the West, I'd just out some parameters on it for teams to qualify.  I think within 6 games of a playoff team if you have under 40 wins. If you win 40 games or are within 6 games of a team the play-in happens. There may be years where 0, 1, or 2 teams qualify and that is fine by me.  The play-in should be used in situations where teams are close and in a way you feel bad if a team doesn't have a shot.  So out west nothing changes this year, while in East no play in games this year.  I would not extend it past 2 extra teams (sorry Houston).

The league needs to stop rewarding bad teams and punishing good teams.

Your system is flawed if there's a discrepancy in the conferences, which happens frequently. A team that is 7 games back could be decent, while the 7th seed in the other conference might not be good at all. This current system works. Blaming injuries on something or another is tough.

[Moranis]

All the more reason to not have the play-in when there are terrible teams in it.

Butler's injury had nothing to do with the play-in. He had a wide open lay-up but decided to wait for the defender to go up and Butler's jump into contact. It was a typical Butler dirty play to get an and-one. Play stupid games, you get stupid prizes, and his was an injury.

It was an extra game that was only being played because of the play-in

Play better in the regular season & you don't have to deal with the play-in game.

They were 7 games clear of the Bulls and won 46 games.  The  Bulls belong no where near the playoffs

That is true for the East but in the West, it was much different.  There is no right  or wrong answer regarding the play-in.  I don't really like it either.  But Butler getting hurt doesn't prove anything.

Didn't you post that you thought ATL was going to get the #8 slot?  I agree that a team (ATL) who is 10 games back of MIA, shouldn't be able to get into the playoffs by winning 1 game.  But in the west, GSW and SAC both won 46 games.  The other side of the argument is that they deserve a shot at the playoffs.

As I've said elsewhere, I have no problem worh the play-in in the West, I'd just out some parameters on it for teams to qualify.  I think within 6 games of a playoff team if you have under 40 wins. If you win 40 games or are within 6 games of a team the play-in happens. There may be years where 0, 1, or 2 teams qualify and that is fine by me.  The play-in should be used in situations where teams are close and in a way you feel bad if a team doesn't have a shot.  So out west nothing changes this year, while in East no play in games this year.  I would not extend it past 2 extra teams (sorry Houston).

The league needs to stop rewarding bad teams and punishing good teams.

I think the bad teams part is way over blown.  Besides a few detractors, and some yet-to-materialize what-if scenarios, I think the play-in is considered a resounding success by the league, media, and the vast majority of teams and fans.

The play-in works because the threat of missing the playoffs has improved the regular season by keeping teams from mailing it in during the final weeks/months.  If Chicago/Atlanta were disqualified due to the gap in wins, the entire threat of missing the playoffs is eliminated, which is the only thing that makes it work.

In it's brief history, the play-in so far has accomplished the following:
Keeps the regular season competitive for longer for more teams.
Keeps the regular season interesting longer for more fans.
Makes it much harder to manipulate the standings for a favorable playoff match up.
Rewards teams 1-6 with a week off.
Has consistently pulled in high ratings every year.
The worst play-in team to ever make the playoffs (36-46 Pelicans in '22) were still able to take a 64-win team to a 6 game series.

It seems like the play-in has improved the entire product in multiple ways (more engagement, more revenue).

Where is the downside?  A hypothetical terrible first round match up?  Seems like an acceptable trade off.

When did I say they should get rid of the play-in? I said it should be modified to not allow bad teams.  If you are 7 games out of the 8th spot and well below .500, you shouldn't have a chance to make the playoffs.  That doesn't seem unreasonable at all.

2023 - no change, all 4 teams in
2022 - east no change, west pelicans 6 back of Clippers in, but Spurs 8 back are out (so 7th seeded Wolves not in play-in)

In that 2022 scenario, I'd make the Pelicans have to beat the Clippers twice in LA, while the Clippers only need 1 win

2021 - 4 teams in (Spurs just barely at 6 games back)
2020 - no play-in in east, 2 teams in out west
2019 - no play-in in west, 2 teams in east
2018 - 1 team in east, 2 teams in west
2017 - 1 team in west, 2 teams in east
2016 - 1 team in west, 2 teams in east

It is similar all the way through and most of the teams that were out, were close enough that they could have made it in had the result of the last game been different.  You still get interest, you still get more teams to care, but you ultimately end up with a better product in the actual playoffs.  That should be the goal.

[green_bballers13]

I think the play-in is exciting. It adds flavor to the first round.  Single elimination games are as good as it gets.

[footey]

Another thread hijacking.  SMH.

[angryguy77]

I still won't be shocked if Miami pulls it out. Hope they do because I want to end them with our without Jimmy.
The heat fans will be just like bucks fans after losing to us in 2022. Jimmy will be the new Middleton and the opportunities to troll them will be endless. I'm here for it.

[bdm860]

All the more reason to not have the play-in when there are terrible teams in it.

Butler's injury had nothing to do with the play-in. He had a wide open lay-up but decided to wait for the defender to go up and Butler's jump into contact. It was a typical Butler dirty play to get an and-one. Play stupid games, you get stupid prizes, and his was an injury.

It was an extra game that was only being played because of the play-in

Play better in the regular season & you don't have to deal with the play-in game.

They were 7 games clear of the Bulls and won 46 games.  The  Bulls belong no where near the playoffs

That is true for the East but in the West, it was much different.  There is no right  or wrong answer regarding the play-in.  I don't really like it either.  But Butler getting hurt doesn't prove anything.

Didn't you post that you thought ATL was going to get the #8 slot?  I agree that a team (ATL) who is 10 games back of MIA, shouldn't be able to get into the playoffs by winning 1 game.  But in the west, GSW and SAC both won 46 games.  The other side of the argument is that they deserve a shot at the playoffs.

As I've said elsewhere, I have no problem worh the play-in in the West, I'd just out some parameters on it for teams to qualify.  I think within 6 games of a playoff team if you have under 40 wins. If you win 40 games or are within 6 games of a team the play-in happens. There may be years where 0, 1, or 2 teams qualify and that is fine by me.  The play-in should be used in situations where teams are close and in a way you feel bad if a team doesn't have a shot.  So out west nothing changes this year, while in East no play in games this year.  I would not extend it past 2 extra teams (sorry Houston).

The league needs to stop rewarding bad teams and punishing good teams.

I think the bad teams part is way over blown.  Besides a few detractors, and some yet-to-materialize what-if scenarios, I think the play-in is considered a resounding success by the league, media, and the vast majority of teams and fans.

The play-in works because the threat of missing the playoffs has improved the regular season by keeping teams from mailing it in during the final weeks/months.  If Chicago/Atlanta were disqualified due to the gap in wins, the entire threat of missing the playoffs is eliminated, which is the only thing that makes it work.

In it's brief history, the play-in so far has accomplished the following:
Keeps the regular season competitive for longer for more teams.
Keeps the regular season interesting longer for more fans.
Makes it much harder to manipulate the standings for a favorable playoff match up.
Rewards teams 1-6 with a week off.
Has consistently pulled in high ratings every year.
The worst play-in team to ever make the playoffs (36-46 Pelicans in '22) were still able to take a 64-win team to a 6 game series.

It seems like the play-in has improved the entire product in multiple ways (more engagement, more revenue).

Where is the downside?  A hypothetical terrible first round match up?  Seems like an acceptable trade off.

When did I say they should get rid of the play-in? I said it should be modified to not allow bad teams.  If you are 7 games out of the 8th spot and well below .500, you shouldn't have a chance to make the playoffs.  That doesn't seem unreasonable at all.

2023 - no change, all 4 teams in
2022 - east no change, west pelicans 6 back of Clippers in, but Spurs 8 back are out (so 7th seeded Wolves not in play-in)

In that 2022 scenario, I'd make the Pelicans have to beat the Clippers twice in LA, while the Clippers only need 1 win

2021 - 4 teams in (Spurs just barely at 6 games back)
2020 - no play-in in east, 2 teams in out west
2019 - no play-in in west, 2 teams in east
2018 - 1 team in east, 2 teams in west
2017 - 1 team in west, 2 teams in east
2016 - 1 team in west, 2 teams in east

It is similar all the way through and most of the teams that were out, were close enough that they could have made it in had the result of the last game been different.  You still get interest, you still get more teams to care, but you ultimately end up with a better product in the actual playoffs.  That should be the goal.

Again, it's the threat to miss the playoffs that makes the whole thing work.  Modifying the play-in would eliminate that threat in several years/instances/scenarios.  This year in the East being a perfect example, even though seeding was up in the air till the end, I believe it was the threat to miss the playoffs that really motivated everyone to play hard till the end.  The benefit seems to far out weighs the hypothetical worst case scenarios.

The NBA's goal should be the entirety of their product (which this has helped).  Not protecting against a hypothetical playoff series that has yet to even happen.

[Neurotic Guy]

All the more reason to not have the play-in when there are terrible teams in it.

Butler's injury had nothing to do with the play-in. He had a wide open lay-up but decided to wait for the defender to go up and Butler's jump into contact. It was a typical Butler dirty play to get an and-one. Play stupid games, you get stupid prizes, and his was an injury.

It was an extra game that was only being played because of the play-in

Play better in the regular season & you don't have to deal with the play-in game.

They were 7 games clear of the Bulls and won 46 games.  The  Bulls belong no where near the playoffs

That is true for the East but in the West, it was much different.  There is no right  or wrong answer regarding the play-in.  I don't really like it either.  But Butler getting hurt doesn't prove anything.

Didn't you post that you thought ATL was going to get the #8 slot?  I agree that a team (ATL) who is 10 games back of MIA, shouldn't be able to get into the playoffs by winning 1 game.  But in the west, GSW and SAC both won 46 games.  The other side of the argument is that they deserve a shot at the playoffs.

As I've said elsewhere, I have no problem worh the play-in in the West, I'd just out some parameters on it for teams to qualify.  I think within 6 games of a playoff team if you have under 40 wins. If you win 40 games or are within 6 games of a team the play-in happens. There may be years where 0, 1, or 2 teams qualify and that is fine by me.  The play-in should be used in situations where teams are close and in a way you feel bad if a team doesn't have a shot.  So out west nothing changes this year, while in East no play in games this year.  I would not extend it past 2 extra teams (sorry Houston).

The league needs to stop rewarding bad teams and punishing good teams.

I think the bad teams part is way over blown.  Besides a few detractors, and some yet-to-materialize what-if scenarios, I think the play-in is considered a resounding success by the league, media, and the vast majority of teams and fans.

The play-in works because the threat of missing the playoffs has improved the regular season by keeping teams from mailing it in during the final weeks/months.  If Chicago/Atlanta were disqualified due to the gap in wins, the entire threat of missing the playoffs is eliminated, which is the only thing that makes it work.

In it's brief history, the play-in so far has accomplished the following:
Keeps the regular season competitive for longer for more teams.
Keeps the regular season interesting longer for more fans.
Makes it much harder to manipulate the standings for a favorable playoff match up.
Rewards teams 1-6 with a week off.
Has consistently pulled in high ratings every year.
The worst play-in team to ever make the playoffs (36-46 Pelicans in '22) were still able to take a 64-win team to a 6 game series.

It seems like the play-in has improved the entire product in multiple ways (more engagement, more revenue).

Where is the downside?  A hypothetical terrible first round match up?  Seems like an acceptable trade off.

When did I say they should get rid of the play-in? I said it should be modified to not allow bad teams.  If you are 7 games out of the 8th spot and well below .500, you shouldn't have a chance to make the playoffs.  That doesn't seem unreasonable at all.

2023 - no change, all 4 teams in
2022 - east no change, west pelicans 6 back of Clippers in, but Spurs 8 back are out (so 7th seeded Wolves not in play-in)

In that 2022 scenario, I'd make the Pelicans have to beat the Clippers twice in LA, while the Clippers only need 1 win

2021 - 4 teams in (Spurs just barely at 6 games back)
2020 - no play-in in east, 2 teams in out west
2019 - no play-in in west, 2 teams in east
2018 - 1 team in east, 2 teams in west
2017 - 1 team in west, 2 teams in east
2016 - 1 team in west, 2 teams in east

It is similar all the way through and most of the teams that were out, were close enough that they could have made it in had the result of the last game been different.  You still get interest, you still get more teams to care, but you ultimately end up with a better product in the actual playoffs.  That should be the goal.

Again, it's the threat to miss the playoffs that makes the whole thing work.  Modifying the play-in would eliminate that threat in several years/instances/scenarios.  This year in the East being a perfect example, even though seeding was up in the air till the end, I believe it was the threat to miss the playoffs that really motivated everyone to play hard till the end.  The benefit seems to far out weighs the hypothetical worst case scenarios.

The NBA's goal should be the entirety of their product (which this has helped).  Not protecting against a hypothetical playoff series that has yet to even happen.

I think the play-in works and I don’t see the need to create criteria to eliminate “bad teams”.  Many things can happen in a season, including a good team gets saddled with 1 or more key injuries. Play-in allows for a team that gets healthy at the end of a season to have a shot at the playoffs - a tough road but a chance.  That gives hope to a fan base rather than that fan base rooting for tank.

Senseless though is the in-season tournament. Hated that and wish they’d get rid of it.

[Moranis]

All the more reason to not have the play-in when there are terrible teams in it.

Butler's injury had nothing to do with the play-in. He had a wide open lay-up but decided to wait for the defender to go up and Butler's jump into contact. It was a typical Butler dirty play to get an and-one. Play stupid games, you get stupid prizes, and his was an injury.

It was an extra game that was only being played because of the play-in

Play better in the regular season & you don't have to deal with the play-in game.

They were 7 games clear of the Bulls and won 46 games.  The  Bulls belong no where near the playoffs

That is true for the East but in the West, it was much different.  There is no right  or wrong answer regarding the play-in.  I don't really like it either.  But Butler getting hurt doesn't prove anything.

Didn't you post that you thought ATL was going to get the #8 slot?  I agree that a team (ATL) who is 10 games back of MIA, shouldn't be able to get into the playoffs by winning 1 game.  But in the west, GSW and SAC both won 46 games.  The other side of the argument is that they deserve a shot at the playoffs.

As I've said elsewhere, I have no problem worh the play-in in the West, I'd just out some parameters on it for teams to qualify.  I think within 6 games of a playoff team if you have under 40 wins. If you win 40 games or are within 6 games of a team the play-in happens. There may be years where 0, 1, or 2 teams qualify and that is fine by me.  The play-in should be used in situations where teams are close and in a way you feel bad if a team doesn't have a shot.  So out west nothing changes this year, while in East no play in games this year.  I would not extend it past 2 extra teams (sorry Houston).

The league needs to stop rewarding bad teams and punishing good teams.

I think the bad teams part is way over blown.  Besides a few detractors, and some yet-to-materialize what-if scenarios, I think the play-in is considered a resounding success by the league, media, and the vast majority of teams and fans.

The play-in works because the threat of missing the playoffs has improved the regular season by keeping teams from mailing it in during the final weeks/months.  If Chicago/Atlanta were disqualified due to the gap in wins, the entire threat of missing the playoffs is eliminated, which is the only thing that makes it work.

In it's brief history, the play-in so far has accomplished the following:
Keeps the regular season competitive for longer for more teams.
Keeps the regular season interesting longer for more fans.
Makes it much harder to manipulate the standings for a favorable playoff match up.
Rewards teams 1-6 with a week off.
Has consistently pulled in high ratings every year.
The worst play-in team to ever make the playoffs (36-46 Pelicans in '22) were still able to take a 64-win team to a 6 game series.

It seems like the play-in has improved the entire product in multiple ways (more engagement, more revenue).

Where is the downside?  A hypothetical terrible first round match up?  Seems like an acceptable trade off.

When did I say they should get rid of the play-in? I said it should be modified to not allow bad teams.  If you are 7 games out of the 8th spot and well below .500, you shouldn't have a chance to make the playoffs.  That doesn't seem unreasonable at all.

2023 - no change, all 4 teams in
2022 - east no change, west pelicans 6 back of Clippers in, but Spurs 8 back are out (so 7th seeded Wolves not in play-in)

In that 2022 scenario, I'd make the Pelicans have to beat the Clippers twice in LA, while the Clippers only need 1 win

2021 - 4 teams in (Spurs just barely at 6 games back)
2020 - no play-in in east, 2 teams in out west
2019 - no play-in in west, 2 teams in east
2018 - 1 team in east, 2 teams in west
2017 - 1 team in west, 2 teams in east
2016 - 1 team in west, 2 teams in east

It is similar all the way through and most of the teams that were out, were close enough that they could have made it in had the result of the last game been different.  You still get interest, you still get more teams to care, but you ultimately end up with a better product in the actual playoffs.  That should be the goal.

Again, it's the threat to miss the playoffs that makes the whole thing work.  Modifying the play-in would eliminate that threat in several years/instances/scenarios.  This year in the East being a perfect example, even though seeding was up in the air till the end, I believe it was the threat to miss the playoffs that really motivated everyone to play hard till the end.  The benefit seems to far out weighs the hypothetical worst case scenarios.

The NBA's goal should be the entirety of their product (which this has helped).  Not protecting against a hypothetical playoff series that has yet to even happen.

The Bulls finished 7 games back.  If Miami had lost its last game or Chicago had won its last game, they would have been 6 games back and in that scenario.  That actually would have made the game actually matter to Chicago and not just New York. 

[Goldstar88]

I still won't be shocked if Miami pulls it out. Hope they do because I want to end them with our without Jimmy.
The heat fans will be just like bucks fans after losing to us in 2022. Jimmy will be the new Middleton and the opportunities to troll them will be endless. I'm here for it.

 

[SparzWizard]

It would be hilarious if Jimmy comes back for Game 1 of the first-round playoffs, or even surprisingly suits up tomorrow.

We've seen weirder things like Rondo playing through an ACL injury.